But I had ALREADY explained it when I first wrote it. You may have missed it.

You claim, If you want to truly consider human nature interfering with spiritual nature, you have to stop the human noise.

I said that I do NOT have to stop the human noise to truly consider human nature interfering with spiritual nature.

That IS the difference in MY viewpoint from YOUR viewpoint. I did not think that I would have explain the difference here as I had thought that you had recognized this earlier. My apologies you did not see this before.

It might be because of ego or it might be just because I was only considering if you saw what you proposed as being the only way or not. I was wondering and one way to clear things up and gain clarity here was to just ask you a clarifying question, which is what did do.

You informed me that there could be other ways, and that could have been the end of it. But you wanted to continue on.

I have not yet worked out how to communicate better through or past human noise. I KNOW what is needed to infiltrate human noise. I just do not yet know the correct words so that people can realize and acknowledge this.

How convenient. Behind your fanciful and absurd smokescreen, you can deny, flex, and soothe your ego, and deny all the noise you create.

I am NOT sure what assumption you have now made and what point you are TRYING TO make. Your last assumption, and already arrived at conclusion, was obvious. But i am not sure what you are TRYING TO ALLUDE to now.

If you are TRYING TO suggest that i create human noise, then feel free to expose it all, so that we can all see it, and take a good hard look at it. But if you are TRYING TO suggest some thing else, then feel free to expose that also.

Fortunately and very naturally, people realize a great deal without needing "the correct words".

How do they do this?

I wonder if your answer fits in with my reply to you about how I do NOT need to stop human noise to truly consider things. I have already realized how and why so called "human nature" interferes with spiritual nature, and so that is why I do NOT need to stop human noise to truly consider, understand, realize and KNOW other things also.

By the way do you really feel that much better within your own self when you TRY TO humiliate "others"?

By the way do you really feel that much better within your own self when you TRY TO humiliate "others"?

Is that how it feels to you? I am sorry, if so. My goal is to see if you can see more than you appear to be focused on (just as you asked of me...and I answered). Doing that may require asking straight-forward questions about what is motivating you to communicate as you do. Your communication can reveal a lot, even when the choice of words are few or dismissive or detached. We can all be questioned... and it can be helpful (I think) if we continually question ourselves. I am playing, and I have fun with it, but it is simply a challenge, and an attempt to get your attention and to connect beyond superficial ego defensiveness and detachment... the goal is not to humiliate.

It seems reasonable to assume that such a sincere goal can only be accelerated by hearing the principle within the personal.

The Buddhist concept of “upaya,” expedient or skillful means, arose around the dawn of the common era – about 2,000 years ago. It emphasizes that even if we possess wisdom, when we want to share it with other beings and help them, it’s not so easy to do so. We need to be patient, creative, and compassionate so they will be able to hear, accept, and act on what we have to share.

...even if we possess wisdom, when we want to share it with other beings and help them, it’s not so easy to do so. We need to be patient, creative, and compassionate so they will be able to hear, accept, and act on what we have to share.

Is this what you do? Does environment play a role? Is there a particular way to express patience, creativity, and compassion?

...even if we possess wisdom, when we want to share it with other beings and help them, it’s not so easy to do so. We need to be patient, creative, and compassionate so they will be able to hear, accept, and act on what we have to share.

Is this what you do? Does environment play a role? Is there a particular way to express patience, creativity, and compassion?

Yes. It is a largely forgotten ability and especially for anyone driven by an agenda. It is the ability to listen rather than judge.

Domyo Burk wrote:
...even if we possess wisdom, when we want to share it with other beings and help them, it’s not so easy to do so. We need to be patient, creative, and compassionate so they will be able to hear, accept, and act on what we have to share.

In truth, more power sharing within marriage took the place of autocracy.

As always, you fail to notice the obvious links between overpopulation and financial inequality and all that you complain about - breakdown of marriage, state controls, loss of prosperity, loss of community. Instead you blame it on women, and I can only imagine the number of rejections you must have experienced to bring you to this state of rigid homophilosophy.

There is an entire dimension of reality to which you and your ilk appear blind, like Flatlanders flailing angrily at a multi-dimensional world.

Greta,

Do you really have any idea what an absolute fool you make of yourself every time you try to defend the feminist movement/women rights movement that took place ( and is still ongoing) in the West ?

In the United States, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution that extended the franchise to women represented one of the created political blunders in American history. The 19th Amendment was basically a consequence of the West experiment with political liberalism, specifically its fundamental tenet that all human beings are born equal, that is, literally THE SAME/ IDENTICAL in terms of their innate dignity (moral worth/ value). If one accepts this premise, it follows, of course. that the sexes: MEN and WOMEN, are also created equal in dignity and women are thereby entitled to the equal (the same/identical) rights and freedoms as men, including the right to vote.

The liberal premise that all human beings are created equal in dignity ( moral worth value) is known as moral egalitarianism. The liberal thesis of moral egalitarianism is, however, merely the presumption of an assumption that has never - despite decades of intense philosophical focus on the problem of justification - been theoretically justified and common sense suggests that it never will be. Just like other human attributes such intelligence (IQ), height, the propensity for work, the capacity to defer gratification, behavioural impulsivity and so, human dignity ( moral worth/virtue/nobility/goodness) is obviously distributed hierarchically along a vertical dimension. At the bottom of ranked, vertical hierarchy are the bad and evil, at the top are the saintly and highly virtuous, and in between these two poles are situated those individuals who occupy ranks of intermediary human dignity.

To cut to the chase liberalism insists that a professional porn star is just as dignified a human being as your local family doctor; that a paedophile is just as upstanding and decent a person as a conscientious school teacher and that "Jack the Ripper" and Mother Theresa were equally dignified human beings who deserved to be treated with the same amount of respect, care and concern, and were absolutely entitled the exactly the same rights and freedoms. I say BULLSHIT, and I say that anyone who sincerely believes this is a nutjob.

After they were given the vote, women - because they are ruled more by emotion and sentiment than rationality; because, relative to males, they lack prudential wisdom and are morally deficient ( according to Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Aristotle and many other great Western philosophers) women automatically voted for the left(socialist) They did this because the Democrats campaigned policies of wealth redistribution they claimed would materially remediate the quality of life of those American citizens who were members of marginalised/ socially disadvantaged/ethnic-racial minority groups who were living in dire poverty and without access to basic opportunities for improving their levels of well-being. Because they are so emotional and sentimental women are profoundly affected by the plight of the "have - nots" in society and when the Democrats promise they will tackle the problem and, generally speaking,make the world a fairer, better place, women don't think twice before giving them their vote.

To cut a long story short this created, in time, a bloated welfare state - something that the US would be much better off without

Then in the 1960's along comes the gender feminist movement, spear-headed by a cohort of extreme Marxist ideologues whose basic position is that sex (i.e. male and female) differences in psychology have nothing to do with evolution, but are are mostly or solely socially constituted/constructed.

This is pure bullshit and there is now a mountain of empirical scientific mainstream research data that says so.

The radical Marxist gender feminists of the 1960's and 1970's argue that all women in the West are being oppressed by an all-encompassing system of patriarchy. They declare that are waging gender war on all of the West's patriarchal institutions which are responsible for promoting the male dominance and male oppression of women. These institutions include marriage and the traditional nuclear family, heterosexuality (!!) the state elementary schools and so on. The end goal of the gender feminist revolution its activists say, will be not just the elimination of male dominance, oppression and privilege BUT OF THE SEX DISTINCTION ITSELF; genital differences between males and females would no longer matter culturally.

Just from the last sentence above we can clearly see that the people orchestrating the gender feminist revolution were clearly and absolutely INSANE. And one need only listen for a few minutes to the bizarre ranting of prominent spokeswomen from the movement like Germain Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firsestone or Ellen Willis to see that that these people are severely disturbed psychologically. They are totally fucked units, and you would never credit that they would be able to actually achieve any of their set political goals, simply because they are so obviously dysfunctional. But the tragic fact is that they did. In the US they did radically undermine the traditional institution of marriage and the patriarchal nuclear family. They did successfully send divorce rates soaring, they did break up countless thousands of homes and consign the children from those homes into worlds of grief and misery, they did decimate the white birth-rate in the United States, the did place legion single mothers in dire poverty, they did place countless thousands of women and children from broken homes on welfare. They did create a huge industrial-scale abortion industry.

In short, they managed to inflict a shitload of MONUMENTAL damage on American society and it continues apace today.

In my opinion the chief orchestrators of the gender feminist movement should be rounded up and indicted for crimes against humanity.

...even if we possess wisdom, when we want to share it with other beings and help them, it’s not so easy to do so. We need to be patient, creative, and compassionate so they will be able to hear, accept, and act on what we have to share.

Is this what you do? Does environment play a role? Is there a particular way to express patience, creativity, and compassion?

Yes. It is a largely forgotten ability and especially for anyone driven by an agenda. It is the ability to listen rather than judge.

I invariably take the choiceless route.

On the map of how to be it’s often the middle way between patience and indulgence, but conditions can alter the terrain to eventually show up as a virtual boundary on the map.

Then there’s that transmogrification of energy arising that so annoys, yes?

You would think that the anger path would be beaten down into ruts but actually it’s out there where the going gets rough in the briars, where the vines clutch at your ankles, where forward progress one step at a time requires hacking a virtual tunnel through a bugland of prickly overgrown underbrush so high that it blocks the sun and creates the occluded possibility that a big cat predator lies waiting in ambush. Never-the-less, the anger path must exist as action to be identified as more than a passing thought or long-term habit, and since knee-jerk attacking is actually an habitual association of energy with emotion, then understanding and shaping the conditions that trigger the habit of anger should be the focus of self-improvement-attention should that be the quest, which may be the promise in the peacegirl thread based on coy intimations but not based on trudging across the tundra, mile after mile.

(Compassion: assume that what is both has to be because it is and had to be before it is and also assume that what was had to be then understand why this is so. This simple doing should intellectually awaken compassion.)

Compassion: assume that what is both has to be because it is and had to be, before it is; and also assume that what was, had to be, then understand why this is so. If the intent is pure and not just ostensible, and stated vocally to transfer it into the bardo of speech that exists between idea and action, then the focus of attention should be sufficient for this simple assumption to intellectually awaken compassion.

Environment: Have you heard of Ben Franklin’s admiration for the “primitive” method of discourse that he observed?

It’s a rule-based method that uses form* to enforce patience.

After dismissing the children to learn playground rules …
The speaker stands to speak.
The speaker is not interrupted.
Sitting and not pausing indicates when the speaker is finished.
When the speaker is finished, a required silence of appropriate length is observed by all.
Repeat.

Age... no offense (truly), but to me it sounds like what you're saying is spinning around in your head (like a mind game to protect your ego), and I can't go there with you.

Why can you not go there with me? I can go absolutely anywhere with you.

You continually mention 'ego', would you like to talk further about this topic, or any other topic?

All I have said here is that I can do some thing in another way from which you originally proposed was the only way. There is no spinning going on that i have heard here regarding this from me. But you are free to hear, and see, whatever you like.

My goal is to see if you can see more than you appear to be focused on (just as you asked of me...and I answered).

Well see how I just asked you a clarifying question, and when you finally answered it, then we could all SEE that you were NOT focused on just one thing. If you can see how quick, simple and easy that worked, and you really have a goal and you are serious about seeing if I can see more that what I appear to be focused on, from your point of view, then I suggest that if you just ask me truly open clarifying questions ALSO, then you and all will SEE what I am REALLY focused on, and NOT just what APPEARS to you that I am focused on.

You are aware right, that if you just answered my extremely simple and open question; Is this the only way? with a very simple 'No' answer in the beginning, then that would have been the end of all this?

Doing that may require asking straight-forward questions about what is motivating you to communicate as you do.

Feel free to ask as many straight-forward questions as you like, and challenge me as much as you like. I thrive on it. By the way ask as many questions as you like, straight-forward or not.

By the way, just saying; "Doing that may require asking straight-forward questions ..." BUT never actually ever asking any questions regarding this now issue of yours seems to be contradictory in and of itself. WHY NOT just ask the questions, then you will actually find if it was REQUIRED or not.

Your communication can reveal a lot, even when the choice of words are few or dismissive or detached.

Would you like to show just how much my communication can reveal? Or, do you prefer to just say that; Your communication can reveal a lot?

If you really want to reveal some thing, then feel free to reveal all of it instead of just saying that what I am doing can reveal a lot, like you are alluding to, or inferring, some thing without ever actually doing it.

We can all be questioned... and it can be helpful (I think) if we continually question ourselves.

Question one's self i have already done, and i found far more than i could have ever even previously imagined. I just wait now to be questioned by others. Unfortunately though within this forum there is not much, if any, real open question and challenging.

By the way, you are right in that we can ALL be questioned, but I am yet to find any one here, in this forum, who will just answer my questions, in a straight-forward way without some making some assumption first.

I am playing, and I have fun with it, but it is simply a challenge, and an attempt to get your attention and to connect beyond superficial ego defensiveness and detachment... the goal is not to humiliate.

Okay, so why have you not yet asked me truly open questions?

Why are your questions coming from presumptive thoughts, which some might argue is the true mark of the ego?

What you call you are playing, having fun with, and find it simply a challenge, I call very boring and ridiculous. I am waiting for you to ask some real quality, deep, meaningful, and open questions and to see if you can really challenge me, so that you can show to everyone here that you are really making an attempt to get my attention and to connect beyond SUPPOSED superficial ego, defensiveness and detachment, that YOU SEE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

Instead of just saying that that is what is going on here, how about you SHOW some evidence of this?

Ask the serious questions and seriously CHALLENGE me, so you can really expose that what you are saying is here.

In truth, more power sharing within marriage took the place of autocracy.

As always, you fail to notice the obvious links between overpopulation and financial inequality and all that you complain about - breakdown of marriage, state controls, loss of prosperity, loss of community. Instead you blame it on women, and I can only imagine the number of rejections you must have experienced to bring you to this state of rigid homophilosophy.

There is an entire dimension of reality to which you and your ilk appear blind, like Flatlanders flailing angrily at a multi-dimensional world.

Greta,

Do you really have any idea what an absolute fool you make of yourself every time you try to defend the feminist movement/women rights movement that took place ( and is still ongoing) in the West ?

In the United States, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution that extended the franchise to women represented one of the created political blunders in American history. The 19th Amendment was basically a consequence of the West experiment with political liberalism, specifically its fundamental tenet that all human beings are born equal, that is, literally THE SAME/ IDENTICAL in terms of their innate dignity (moral worth/ value). If one accepts this premise, it follows, of course. that the sexes: MEN and WOMEN, are also created equal in dignity and women are thereby entitled to the equal (the same/identical) rights and freedoms as men, including the right to vote.

The liberal premise that all human beings are created equal in dignity ( moral worth value) is known as moral egalitarianism. The liberal thesis of moral egalitarianism is, however, merely the presumption of an assumption that has never - despite decades of intense philosophical focus on the problem of justification - been theoretically justified and common sense suggests that it never will be. Just like other human attributes such intelligence (IQ), height, the propensity for work, the capacity to defer gratification, behavioural impulsivity and so, human dignity ( moral worth/virtue/nobility/goodness) is obviously distributed hierarchically along a vertical dimension. At the bottom of ranked, vertical hierarchy are the bad and evil, at the top are the saintly and highly virtuous, and in between these two poles are situated those individuals who occupy ranks of intermediary human dignity.

To cut to the chase liberalism insists that a professional porn star is just as dignified a human being as your local family doctor; that a paedophile is just as upstanding and decent a person as a conscientious school teacher and that "Jack the Ripper" and Mother Theresa were equally dignified human beings who deserved to be treated with the same amount of respect, care and concern, and were absolutely entitled the exactly the same rights and freedoms. I say BULLSHIT, and I say that anyone who sincerely believes this is a nutjob.

After they were given the vote, women - because they are ruled more by emotion and sentiment than rationality; because, relative to males, they lack prudential wisdom and are morally deficient ( according to Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Aristotle and many other great Western philosophers) women automatically voted for the left(socialist) They did this because the Democrats campaigned policies of wealth redistribution they claimed would materially remediate the quality of life of those American citizens who were members of marginalised/ socially disadvantaged/ethnic-racial minority groups who were living in dire poverty and without access to basic opportunities for improving their levels of well-being. Because they are so emotional and sentimental women are profoundly affected by the plight of the "have - nots" in society and when the Democrats promise they will tackle the problem and, generally speaking,make the world a fairer, better place, women don't think twice before giving them their vote.

To cut a long story short this created, in time, a bloated welfare state - something that the US would be much better off without

Then in the 1960's along comes the gender feminist movement, spear-headed by a cohort of extreme Marxist ideologues whose basic position is that sex (i.e. male and female) differences in psychology have nothing to do with evolution, but are are mostly or solely socially constituted/constructed.

This is pure bullshit and there is now a mountain of empirical scientific mainstream research data that says so.

The radical Marxist gender feminists of the 1960's and 1970's argue that all women in the West are being oppressed by an all-encompassing system of patriarchy. They declare that are waging gender war on all of the West's patriarchal institutions which are responsible for promoting the male dominance and male oppression of women. These institutions include marriage and the traditional nuclear family, heterosexuality (!!) the state elementary schools and so on. The end goal of the gender feminist revolution its activists say, will be not just the elimination of male dominance, oppression and privilege BUT OF THE SEX DISTINCTION ITSELF; genital differences between males and females would no longer matter culturally.

Just from the last sentence above we can clearly see that the people orchestrating the gender feminist revolution were clearly and absolutely INSANE. And one need only listen for a few minutes to the bizarre ranting of prominent spokeswomen from the movement like Germain Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firsestone or Ellen Willis to see that that these people are severely disturbed psychologically. They are totally fucked units, and you would never credit that they would be able to actually achieve any of their set political goals, simply because they are so obviously dysfunctional. But the tragic fact is that they did. In the US they did radically undermine the traditional institution of marriage and the patriarchal nuclear family. They did successfully send divorce rates soaring, they did break up countless thousands of homes and consign the children from those homes into worlds of grief and misery, they did decimate the white birth-rate in the United States, the did place legion single mothers in dire poverty, they did place countless thousands of women and children from broken homes on welfare. They did create a huge industrial-scale abortion industry.

In short, they managed to inflict a shitload of MONUMENTAL damage on American society and it continues apace today.

In my opinion the chief orchestrators of the gender feminist movement should be rounded up and indicted for crimes against humanity.

Regards

Dachshund

You're an idiot! Without either, there would be neither. Two halves of a whole my friend!

Without your mothers love, you would have withered and died, though the weakling you continue to show.

Do you know self sacrifice? I do! I protected your dumb ass from being instantly vaporized by man's leadership. Did I just say fear? To become that thing one fears, the epitome of insanity! Do you have a clue? The spheres must balance, my unbalanced, would be, Narcissus!

That someone like you assumes that any particular manmade concept reigns supreme and doesn't require scrutiny as being mislead and/or false, and then formulates supportive justifications for that thing that serves their selfish purpose, does not necessarily make it a universal; absolute. An argument for eating feces, no matter how seemingly logical is still an argument for eating feces. So go ahead and eat it. But don't think for a second that others of the current 7.7 billion are gonna necessarily join you in eating shite.

You're on your own you wanker! Well actually probably not, because I'm sure there are plenty of you megalomaniacs running around, beating your pud, saying, "see daddy, I'm playing with my peepee!" Your physical strength be damned, you were once helpless, then passed through your maximum strength, and one day shall be just as helpless, and you'll still gonna die. Nothing you can do shall stop that, so get over it and be a real man!

EVERYONE, INITIALLY, IS JUST AS CAPABLE AT ANYTHING, IT ALL SIMPLY DEPENDS UPON ANY PARTICULAR SET OF CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES. NO PARTICULAR SEX, CULTURE, CREED, BELIEF OR GENETIC STRUCTURE NECESSARILY MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL. FOR INSTANCE, LOOK AT YOU, YOU'RE A MALE AND A COMPLETE AND UTTER DUMBASS, WHAT HAPPENED DURING YOUR CHILDHOOD THAT CAUSED SUCH BITTERNESS, THAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE YOU'RE NIETZSCHE'S ÜBERMENSCH?

I get so tired of you fools! You wankers! You suckers of self! You ego maniacs! You narcissistic mentally blind fucks!

Of course there's always hope! Open your minds eye and see the menagerie of humanity on this orb of stellar life for the utter magnificence that it truly is. Together we stand, divided we fall. Science, the only true calling, and that which is the only thing that can truly guide us to any hope of eternity. The cosmos can crush us all in the blink of an eye, utter vaporization, DNA instantly non existent, get over it and smell the flowers, the beauty of life's diversity, embracing it all, together we can be unstoppable!

Bickering amongst ourselves, historically, has never worked. Everyone can, and is needed in every aspect of our lives. One never knows from where the next bright idea might spring if we all nurture one another. We that are alive are the epitome of cosmic possibility, I just wonder why we can often appear so utterly ignorant of how wasteful we are with our one life. We should all just try and do the best we can, knowing it's all that we can do, keeping an eye on all the great things that become of it. Why fight amongst ourselves instead of understanding the miraculousness of this cosmic instance, and rejoicing at the chance of the experience at wondering and learning about it all. That's the milk and honey, the quest for the truth of it all! Historically, physically, psychologically, philosophically, socially, anthropologically, cosmically, etc, etc, etc!

Oh, and Fuck money! If we truly saw life/universe as we should, there would be no need for that 'weapon' of, supposed supremacy either.

Humans gotta grow up eventually! It just doesn't seem like it's gonna happen in my lifetime. Pity! I would have loved to have seen the, "oh now I finally get it," moment! Oh the parties that would ensue, an utterly joyous occasion.

In truth, more power sharing within marriage took the place of autocracy.

As always, you fail to notice the obvious links between overpopulation and financial inequality and all that you complain about - breakdown of marriage, state controls, loss of prosperity, loss of community. Instead you blame it on women, and I can only imagine the number of rejections you must have experienced to bring you to this state of rigid homophilosophy.

There is an entire dimension of reality to which you and your ilk appear blind, like Flatlanders flailing angrily at a multi-dimensional world.

Greta,

Do you really have any idea what an absolute fool you make of yourself every time you try to defend the feminist movement/women rights movement that took place ( and is still ongoing) in the West ?

In the United States, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution that extended the franchise to women represented one of the created political blunders in American history. The 19th Amendment was basically a consequence of the West experiment with political liberalism, specifically its fundamental tenet that all human beings are born equal, that is, literally THE SAME/ IDENTICAL in terms of their innate dignity (moral worth/ value). If one accepts this premise, it follows, of course. that the sexes: MEN and WOMEN, are also created equal in dignity and women are thereby entitled to the equal (the same/identical) rights and freedoms as men, including the right to vote.

The liberal premise that all human beings are created equal in dignity ( moral worth value) is known as moral egalitarianism. The liberal thesis of moral egalitarianism is, however, merely the presumption of an assumption that has never - despite decades of intense philosophical focus on the problem of justification - been theoretically justified and common sense suggests that it never will be. Just like other human attributes such intelligence (IQ), height, the propensity for work, the capacity to defer gratification, behavioural impulsivity and so, human dignity ( moral worth/virtue/nobility/goodness) is obviously distributed hierarchically along a vertical dimension. At the bottom of ranked, vertical hierarchy are the bad and evil, at the top are the saintly and highly virtuous, and in between these two poles are situated those individuals who occupy ranks of intermediary human dignity.

To cut to the chase liberalism insists that a professional porn star is just as dignified a human being as your local family doctor; that a paedophile is just as upstanding and decent a person as a conscientious school teacher and that "Jack the Ripper" and Mother Theresa were equally dignified human beings who deserved to be treated with the same amount of respect, care and concern, and were absolutely entitled the exactly the same rights and freedoms. I say BULLSHIT, and I say that anyone who sincerely believes this is a nutjob.

After they were given the vote, women - because they are ruled more by emotion and sentiment than rationality; because, relative to males, they lack prudential wisdom and are morally deficient ( according to Immanuel Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Aristotle and many other great Western philosophers) women automatically voted for the left(socialist) They did this because the Democrats campaigned policies of wealth redistribution they claimed would materially remediate the quality of life of those American citizens who were members of marginalised/ socially disadvantaged/ethnic-racial minority groups who were living in dire poverty and without access to basic opportunities for improving their levels of well-being. Because they are so emotional and sentimental women are profoundly affected by the plight of the "have - nots" in society and when the Democrats promise they will tackle the problem and, generally speaking,make the world a fairer, better place, women don't think twice before giving them their vote.

To cut a long story short this created, in time, a bloated welfare state - something that the US would be much better off without

Then in the 1960's along comes the gender feminist movement, spear-headed by a cohort of extreme Marxist ideologues whose basic position is that sex (i.e. male and female) differences in psychology have nothing to do with evolution, but are are mostly or solely socially constituted/constructed.

This is pure bullshit and there is now a mountain of empirical scientific mainstream research data that says so.

The radical Marxist gender feminists of the 1960's and 1970's argue that all women in the West are being oppressed by an all-encompassing system of patriarchy. They declare that are waging gender war on all of the West's patriarchal institutions which are responsible for promoting the male dominance and male oppression of women. These institutions include marriage and the traditional nuclear family, heterosexuality (!!) the state elementary schools and so on. The end goal of the gender feminist revolution its activists say, will be not just the elimination of male dominance, oppression and privilege BUT OF THE SEX DISTINCTION ITSELF; genital differences between males and females would no longer matter culturally.

Just from the last sentence above we can clearly see that the people orchestrating the gender feminist revolution were clearly and absolutely INSANE. And one need only listen for a few minutes to the bizarre ranting of prominent spokeswomen from the movement like Germain Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firsestone or Ellen Willis to see that that these people are severely disturbed psychologically. They are totally fucked units, and you would never credit that they would be able to actually achieve any of their set political goals, simply because they are so obviously dysfunctional. But the tragic fact is that they did. In the US they did radically undermine the traditional institution of marriage and the patriarchal nuclear family. They did successfully send divorce rates soaring, they did break up countless thousands of homes and consign the children from those homes into worlds of grief and misery, they did decimate the white birth-rate in the United States, the did place legion single mothers in dire poverty, they did place countless thousands of women and children from broken homes on welfare. They did create a huge industrial-scale abortion industry.

In short, they managed to inflict a shitload of MONUMENTAL damage on American society and it continues apace today.

In my opinion the chief orchestrators of the gender feminist movement should be rounded up and indicted for crimes against humanity.

Regards

Dachshund

You're an idiot! Without either, there would be neither. Two halves of a whole my friend!

Without your mothers love, you would have withered and died, though the weakling you continue to show.

Do you know self sacrifice? I do! I protected your dumb ass from being instantly vaporized by man's leadership. Did I just say fear? To become that thing one fears, the epitome of insanity! Do you have a clue? The spheres must balance, my unbalanced, would be, Narcissus!

That someone like you assumes that any particular manmade concept reigns supreme and doesn't require scrutiny as being mislead and/or false, and then formulates supportive justifications for that thing that serves their selfish purpose, does not necessarily make it a universal; absolute. An argument for eating feces, no matter how seemingly logical is still an argument for eating feces. So go ahead and eat it. But don't think for a second that others of the current 7.7 billion are gonna necessarily join you in eating shite.

You're on your own you wanker! Well actually probably not, because I'm sure there are plenty of you megalomaniacs running around, beating your pud, saying, "see daddy, I'm playing with my peepee!" Your physical strength be damned, you were once helpless, then passed through your maximum strength, and one day shall be just as helpless, and you'll still gonna die. Nothing you can do shall stop that, so get over it and be a real man!

EVERYONE, INITIALLY, IS JUST AS CAPABLE AT ANYTHING, IT ALL SIMPLY DEPENDS UPON ANY PARTICULAR SET OF CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES. NO PARTICULAR SEX, CULTURE, CREED, BELIEF OR GENETIC STRUCTURE NECESSARILY MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL. FOR INSTANCE, LOOK AT YOU, YOU'RE A MALE AND A COMPLETE AND UTTER DUMBASS, WHAT HAPPENED DURING YOUR CHILDHOOD THAT CAUSED SUCH BITTERNESS, THAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE YOU'RE NIETZSCHE'S ÜBERMENSCH?

I get so tired of you fools! You wankers! You suckers of self! You ego maniacs! You narcissistic mentally blind fucks!

Of course there's always hope! Open your minds eye and see the menagerie of humanity on this orb of stellar life for the utter magnificence that it truly is. Together we stand, divided we fall. Science, the only true calling, and that which is the only thing that can truly guide us to any hope of eternity. The cosmos can crush us all in the blink of an eye, utter vaporization, DNA instantly non existent, get over it and smell the flowers, the beauty of life's diversity, embracing it all, together we can be unstoppable!

Bickering amongst ourselves, historically, has never worked. Everyone can, and is needed in every aspect of our lives. One never knows from where the next bright idea might spring if we all nurture one another. We that are alive are the epitome of cosmic possibility, I just wonder why we can often appear so utterly ignorant of how wasteful we are with our one life. We should all just try and do the best we can, knowing it's all that we can do, keeping an eye on all the great things that become of it. Why fight amongst ourselves instead of understanding the miraculousness of this cosmic instance, and rejoicing at the chance of the experience at wondering and learning about it all. That's the milk and honey, the quest for the truth of it all! Historically, physically, psychologically, philosophically, socially, anthropologically, cosmically, etc, etc, etc!

Oh, and Fuck money! If we truly saw life/universe as we should, there would be no need for that 'weapon' of, supposed supremacy either.

Humans gotta grow up eventually! It just doesn't seem like it's gonna happen in my lifetime. Pity! I would have loved to have seen the, "oh now I finally get it," moment! Oh the parties that would ensue, an utterly joyous occasion.

Good luck, my people!

To those forum members who have read Spheresofbalance's response (above) to my post; please note the following:

(1) None of the issues I raised regarding the philosophy of Liberalism or the destructive impact of "Second Generation", Marxist gender feminism in the United States is addressed, let alone rationally rebutted.

(2) The tone of the entire post is self-evidently "florrid",i.e; abnormally hyper-emotional, verging on the hysterical. What is written is, generally speaking, utterly unreasonable (irrational) and simply makes no sense in the context of its being intended to object to the material in my post( re Liberalism/radical Marxist gender feminism) (?)

(3) Note how the content "Spheresofbalance's" response is totally incoherent and desultry. The ideas and concepts presented - both within and between - each paragraph are not logically connected. They bounce, erratically and rapidly, from "bumper to bumper" in a chaotic manner like the silver ball in a Pinball machine. In psychiartry, this pattern of communication is regarded as "first rank" evidence of "cognitive derailment" which is, in turn, a classic symptom of psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. If you were to give "Spheresofbalance's post (above) to any Western psychiatrist to read, s/he would tell you that if the author was sober (i.e; not under the influence of any consciousness -altering drug/s) at the time the piece was written,then it would be highly likely that s/he was afflicted with a pyschotic condition such as a thought disorder or, as I say, disorganised schizophrenia. (This is the polite way of saying "barking mad").

(4) In conclusion. My advise to Spheresofbalance is that she is very likely unbalanced and would do well to seek a professional medical (psychiatric) assessment. Untreated psychosis is, generally speaking, a profoundly disabling and impairing condition, but there is no reason to despair as there are a range of efficacious "new-generation" antipschotic medications available for treatment at present.

Dachshund, I don't think anyone will worry about being called "unbalanced", or any of your rich collection of epithets, by you.

You have no credibility and most certainly not a conservative as you claim, with your wish to disenfranchise half of the population because they don't have a penis.

That means, by your standards of what is or is not credible with respect to how males ought relate to females and vice versa, that: Aristotle; Cicero; Seneca; St Thomas Aquinas and the Schoolmen; Richard Hooker; Edmund Burke; Immanuel Kant; Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche to name but a few of the great Western philosophers who have argued the case that I am arguing (i.e. women have an innate deficit in moral reasoning that permanently invalidates any claim they might ever press for a right to the franchise, and (2) women are happiest when they are placed in traditional, patriarchal marriages) are all -to a man - mindless fools and speakers of utter nonsense, while women like Germaine Greer , Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem are, on the other hand, intellectual giants.

Good luck with that argument Greta - let me know how it works out for you ?